i7 8700k compared to Ryzen 1700/1800 for DAW perfomance

[rsmus7]

Ryzen 7 2700: 10C/20T @ 4.0/4.5GHz (replaces Ryzen 7 1700)
Ryzen 7 2800: 12C/24T @ 4.4/4.9GHz (replaces Ryzen 7 1700X)
Ryzen 7 2800X: 12C/24T @ 4.6/5.1GHz (replaces Ryzen 7 1800X)

Better yet, the pricing on these new Ryzen 2 processors is damn good with the Ryzen 7 2700 starting at $329, the Ryzen 7 2800 priced at $399 while the flagship Ryzen 7 2800X will be priced at $449.

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/60100/am ... index.html

promising news

I think I need to train my patience a bit
and wait till february at least

[Scotty]

It is going to be interesting to see some dawbench scores but first we have some real limitations with some daws not scaling well beyond 14 logical cores and then we issues with most daws not being able to load more than 50 to 60 unique VST plugins. All the power in the world won't solve these bottlenecks.

Also there are reports of some Ryzen motherboards not recognizing UAD-2 cards + issues with some audio cards on USB 3 - not to mention lack of Thunderbolt.

It is still too early jump but I am hoping that by the summer we'll have some progress on all these fronts.

24 usuable cores at 5.1 ghz sounds (if possible) really sounds good to me especially at the asking price.

Ryzen 7 2700: 10C/20T @ 4.0/4.5GHz (replaces Ryzen 7 1700)
Ryzen 7 2800: 12C/24T @ 4.4/4.9GHz (replaces Ryzen 7 1700X)
Ryzen 7 2800X: 12C/24T @ 4.6/5.1GHz (replaces Ryzen 7 1800X)

Better yet, the pricing on these new Ryzen 2 processors is damn good with the Ryzen 7 2700 starting at $329, the Ryzen 7 2800 priced at $399 while the flagship Ryzen 7 2800X will be priced at $449.

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/60100/am ... index.html

[scottishraver]

I ordered a ryzen 1800x system then read this the same night https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c ... leton.html

So I ended up changing my spec to the 8700k
I took delivery yesterday and have just set it up but not had chance to give ableton a blast on it yet .

Maybe other ryzen users can confirm if they have same problem with ryzen and Kramer etc with ableton .
I know lots use ryzen on here and have no problems and I really hope ryzen 2 is the best available but I couldn't wait any longer iv been needing to upgrade since Sep 2016

[phreaque]

Regarding my previous post of Ryzen Gen.2, some websites telling it is fake info.. So don't take it seriously.. Anyhow time will tell...

[rsmus7]

Regarding my previous post of Ryzen Gen.2, some websites telling it is fake info.. So don't take it seriously.. Anyhow time will tell...

anyway I think ryzen 2 will be interesting and next year will bring some new cpus
worth the wait.
I've already thought about the scaling issues of the sequencers.
I hope Reaper will be one of the first sequencers that can handle that many cores.
The perfomance of Reaper atm is one of the best of all imho.

[Kaine]

I've been retesting recently, and restrictions seem to be improving. I've got Reaper running and addressing a 32 core (logical, not physical) fully on the current build without any problems, so it looks like things are getting worked upon as I can remember the point that wasn't the case. I think all the rest of them are there now too... but, I've still got a couple to check.

[Scotty]

This is good news for Reaper but Cubase is still not there.

Cubase still hasn't addressed the issue regarding the 14 logical issues as of the latest 9.5 build. Also the upper limit of unique VSTs being able to load is still dependent upon third party vst develpers using dynamically linked run time libraries instead of statically linked libraries. According to Steinberg they cant address this on their own although they are working on Cubase now so that 9.5 will have the same capacity as 8.5. Studio One and Reaper also have these issues but both appear to have a bit more upper ceiling than Cubase.

I've been retesting recently, and restrictions seem to be improving. I've got Reaper running and addressing a 32 core (logical, not physical) fully on the current build without any problems, so it looks like things are getting worked upon as I can remember the point that wasn't the case. I think all the rest of them are there now too... but, I've still got a couple to check.

[rsmus7]

I've been retesting recently, and restrictions seem to be improving. I've got Reaper running and addressing a 32 core (logical, not physical) fully on the current build without any problems, so it looks like things are getting worked upon as I can remember the point that wasn't the case. I think all the rest of them are there now too... but, I've still got a couple to check.

this is good news

[Kaine]

Cubase still hasn't addressed the issue regarding the 14 logical issues as of the latest 9.5 build.

That surprises me as it doesn't affect C8.5 to any real extent so I assumed they'd have this nailed in 9.5 given it must be something to do with the Cubase 9/Windows interaction. Contact them directly, explain your setup and ask them if they have a fix out of beta and available to the public. I was playing with a workaround a few months ago that helped a lot, so it's possible that they may well be at release stage now. From what I could figure out I think the problem is largely that MS has made a few changes that Steinberg are having to work around, and I'm not overly sure if the final fix is supposed to be rolled out via MS or Steinberg at this point, so I can't really advise fully on who is going to resolve it. But I guess narrowing down someone to ask at Steinberg is going to be the easier option than playing chase the MS support guy!

Also the upper limit of unique VSTs being able to load is still dependent upon third party vst develpers using dynamically linked runtime libraries instead of statically linked libraries. According to Steinberg, they cant address this on their own although they are working on Cubase now so that 9.5 will have the same capacity as 8.5. Studio One and Reaper also have these issues but both appear to have a bit more upper ceiling than Cubase.

I was vaguely aware of this, but I don't know absolute numbers. Any chance you've got links to any documentation addressing this? Pretty interested for my own knowledge more than anything else.

[Scotty]

Hello Kaine

This is from Steinberg and as far as I know there is no fix yet...

https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-u ... CPU-setups


This is also on the Steinberg forum regarding the upper limit of unique VSTs related to statically linked run-time libraries.. if you read the thread you'll see mention of Protools, Studio One, Reaper and others also being impacted by this to varying degrees.

https://es.steinberg.net/forums/viewtop ... 8&t=101195


Both of these bottle-necks are a serious impediments to upgrading. If you can't use the power/cores then the upgrade is rather pointless.

Cubase still hasn't addressed the issue regarding the 14 logical issues as of the latest 9.5 build.

That surprises me as it doesn't affect C8.5 to any real extent so I assumed they'd have this nailed in 9.5 given it must be something to do with the Cubase 9/Windows interaction. Contact them directly, explain your setup and ask them if they have a fix out of beta and available to the public. I was playing with a workaround a few months ago that helped a lot, so it's possible that they may well be at release stage now. From what I could figure out I think the problem is largely that MS has made a few changes that Steinberg are having to work around, and I'm not overly sure if the final fix is supposed to be rolled out via MS or Steinberg at this point, so I can't really advise fully on who is going to resolve it. But I guess narrowing down someone to ask at Steinberg is going to be the easier option than playing chase the MS support guy!

Also the upper limit of unique VSTs being able to load is still dependent upon third party vst develpers using dynamically linked runtime libraries instead of statically linked libraries. According to Steinberg, they cant address this on their own although they are working on Cubase now so that 9.5 will have the same capacity as 8.5. Studio One and Reaper also have these issues but both appear to have a bit more upper ceiling than Cubase.

I was vaguely aware of this, but I don't know absolute numbers. Any chance you've got links to any documentation addressing this? Pretty interested for my own knowledge more than anything else.

[rsmus7]

here is another thread about the unique vst loading limitations in the cakewalk forum.
To me it is very obvious that we didn't
recognize this earlier, because we never could load enough vst's to reach the limit of the OS. The hardware limitation was there much faster.

[Kaine]

This is from Steinberg and as far as I know there is no fix yet...

https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-u ... CPU-setups

Thanks, although I'm well aware of this one and if it's affecting you then there are further workarounds being developed, but you'll need to speak to them to establish which is the best one for your setup. I have one in place for my clients already, but it's not a catchall fix and on the wrong hardware combination it's as likely to cripple the system as fix it.

This is also on the Steinberg forum regarding the upper limit of unique VSTs related to statically linked run-time libraries.. if you read the thread you'll see mention of Protools, Studio One, Reaper and others also being impacted by this to varying degrees.

https://es.steinberg.net/forums/viewtop ... 8&t=101195


Both of these bottle-necks are a serious impediments to upgrading. If you can't use the power/cores then the upgrade is rather pointless.

Yeah, this is the one I wasn't fully aware of. Like one of the posters within the linked thread, I've got a vague recollection of it being discussed with older builds/under older OS versions, but I've not seen it occur in a good number of years and thought it was long gone by this point. I'm just intrigued to know what the magic number is, but having glanced over the thread it appears to be a moving target depending upon other resources.

[FlyingNoodle]

Hey guys nice thread, hope you don't mind if I join along?
I'm planning a workstation upgrade sometime next year (Currently on an i7 4770K Haswell)

Bed time reading - LGA1151 Coffee Lake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_Lake
http://www.hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/1 ... ffee-lake/

Although I'm interested in checking out AMD's offering this year, I'd like to see how things develop over the months ahead before making my mind up. At the moment I've been researching a platform around the i7-8770k.

[Scotty]

There is no magic number but there is a range that you will see if your surf the forums - apparently some vsts use more "slots" than others with UA plugins being more greedy than others and waves being better than most ( I can confirm the UA behaviour) In the Steinberg forum you'll see posts from Steinberg staff that the upper limit of unique vsts is somewhere in the 50 to 56 range. Studio One is apparently about the same. Reaper is reportedly a little better with upper 50s to mid 60s. But they are all in that range. Some people are getting around it by applying jbridge to 64 bit plugins. I haven't tried this and for now I have only reached my ceiling on a few projects.

Also Cubase 9.5 uses more resources than Cubase 8 and Steinberg made a suggestion to remove a few components to free up a few more slots and they are also gradually doing some internal tweaks to allow more plugins to run but they say it won't be huge difference and these internal changes are being hampered due to backward compatibility with Windows 7. They have explained that the solution lies with the vst developers recompiling plugins to link dynamically to the run-time libraries (I don't truly understand this particular detail - I am just parroting this particular detail back to you).

The unfortunate thing in regard to this behaviour is Cubase gives no indication whatsover that a project is failing to load specific plugins and people have spent hours trying to isolate issues that are a very deep in a mix trying to figure out why some spot effect doesn't sound the same. It is very frustrating. Sometimes they load ... sometimes they won't. Sometimes different plugins will fail and others there were failing will load. Also some projects that worked fine in Cubase 8x will have vst loading issues in Cubase 9x because the app itself uses more resources.

For most people they likely won't hit these limits but there are some of us, probably quite a few of your clients, who really need that available power and reliability for professional/ time sensitive projects.

Also this is not a ram issue which is often the default response of people who haven't encountered the problem when they chime in on the topic.

This is from Steinberg and as far as I know there is no fix yet...

https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-u ... CPU-setups

Thanks, although I'm well aware of this one and if it's affecting you then there are further workarounds being developed, but you'll need to speak to them to establish which is the best one for your setup. I have one in place for my clients already, but it's not a catchall fix and on the wrong hardware combination it's as likely to cripple the system as fix it.

This is also on the Steinberg forum regarding the upper limit of unique VSTs related to statically linked run-time libraries.. if you read the thread you'll see mention of Protools, Studio One, Reaper and others also being impacted by this to varying degrees.

https://es.steinberg.net/forums/viewtop ... 8&t=101195


Both of these bottle-necks are a serious impediments to upgrading. If you can't use the power/cores then the upgrade is rather pointless.

Yeah, this is the one I wasn't fully aware of. Like one of the posters within the linked thread, I've got a vague recollection of it being discussed with older builds/under older OS versions, but I've not seen it occur in a good number of years and thought it was long gone by this point. I'm just intrigued to know what the magic number is, but having glanced over the thread it appears to be a moving target depending upon other resources.

[Kaine]

Also this is not a ram issue which is often the default response of people who haven't encountered the problem when they chime in on the topic.

Yeah, I could certainly see how that might confuse people. Thanks for your comments, I've been reading a bit more on top and it all makes sense. Annoying we're not past these sorts of limits, but I get what and why now.